A. The Plaintiff’s mother, from early 201, operated the title “D” as “D” in the Hagu, Busan (hereinafter “the title of this case”) from early 201.

B. B requested the Plaintiff, his assistant, to shift the title of the instant Hopon to the Plaintiff due to tax issues in early 2013.

B changed not only the name of the tenant of the instant head office, but also the business registration name related to the said head office to the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendant, who is a liquor supplier, supplied alcoholic beverages to the instant head office, and the amount of alcoholic beverages unpaid until January 7, 2014 was 10,009,569 won.

On August 26, 2014, the Defendant filed an order for payment with the Plaintiff, the business owner title holder, under this Court No. 201737, and this Court rendered an order for payment on August 26, 2014, stating that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff of this case) the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day of the service of the original copy of the order for payment to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was finalized as it is because the Plaintiff was served with the original copy and did not raise any objection thereto.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The parties to a liquor supply contract are both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the parties to a liquor supply contract are not the Plaintiff and the Defendant, since the Plaintiff was supplied alcoholic beverages by the Defendant while substantially operating the instant store. In addition, although the Plaintiff was registered as a business operator under the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendant is well aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not the actual business owner, so it is difficult to see the Plaintiff as a bona fide third party who was mistaken for the name of the name of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff does not bear a liquor payment obligation against the Defendant. 2) The Plaintiff is a party to the instant liquor supply contract, and

(b).